No. 19-7947

Bobby Joe Floyd v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-03-10
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP Experienced Counsel
Tags: 28-usc-2255 career-offender-guideline constitutional-vagueness criminal-procedure-28-usc-2255 habeas-corpus johnson-v-united-states mandatory-guidelines mandatory-sentencing-guidelines residual-clause section-2255 timeliness
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2020-04-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a § 2255 motion filed within one year of Johnson v. United States, claiming that Johnson invalidates the residual clause of the pre-Booker career offender guideline, asserts a 'right .. . initially recognized' in Johnson for timeliness purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(8)

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Questions Presented 1. Whether a § 2255 motion filed within one year of Johnson v. United States, claiming that Johnson invalidates the residual clause of the pre-Booker career offender guideline, asserts a “right .. . initially recognized” in Johnson for timeliness purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(8). 2. Whether, in light of Johnson, the residual clause of the mandatory guidelines is unconstitutionally vague. i Statement of

Docket Entries

2020-04-20
Petition DENIED.
2020-04-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2020.
2020-03-26
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2020-03-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 9, 2020)

Attorneys

Bobby Joe Floyd
Brianna Fuller MircheffOffice of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
Brianna Fuller MircheffOffice of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent